cocos_add_capsule_collider_3d

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool attaches a collider and specifies direction mapping, but fails to describe key behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but not stated), what happens if a collider already exists (replacement or error), permissions needed, or side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the action and provides key parameter info. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part earns its place by delivering essential information efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on when to use the tool, behavioral details, and semantics for most parameters. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't address mutation risks, prerequisites, or integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'direction' parameter (mapping 0,1,2 to X,Y,Z), leaving 8 other parameters undocumented. While it adds meaning for one parameter, it fails to cover the majority, including critical ones like 'scene_path' and 'node_id'. This insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Attach cc.CapsuleCollider' clearly states the verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.CapsuleCollider'), but it's vague about the exact action—it doesn't specify if this creates a new collider or attaches an existing one. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cocos_add_box_collider_3d' by specifying 'Capsule', but lacks detail on the broader purpose (e.g., for physics simulation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions direction mapping (0=X, 1=Y, 2=Z), which hints at orientation but doesn't explain when to choose this over other collider types (e.g., box or sphere) or prerequisites like scene/node setup. Without usage context, the agent must infer from parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.